English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Background Avoiding or correcting a diagnostic error first requires identification of an error and perhaps deciding to revise a diagnosis, but little is known about the factors that lead to revision. Three aspects of reflective practice, seeking Alternative explanations, exploring the Consequences of missing these alternative diagnoses, identifying Traits that may contradict the provisional diagnosis, were incorporated into a three-point diagnostic checklist (abbreviated to ACT). Methods Seventeen first and second year emergency medicine residents from the University of Toronto participated. Participants read up to eight case vignettes and completed the ACT diagnostic checklist. Provisional and final diagnoses and all responses for alternatives, consequences, and traits were individually scored as correct or incorrect. Additionally, each consequence was scored on a severity scale from 0 (not severe) to 3 (very severe). Average scores for alternatives, consequences, and traits and the severity rating for each consequence were entered into a binary logistic regression analysis with the outcome of revised or retained provisional diagnosis. Results Only 13% of diagnoses were revised. The binary logistic regression revealed that three scores derived from the ACT tool responses were associated with the decision to revise: severity rating of the consequence for missing the provisional diagnosis, the percent correct for identifying consequences, and the percent correct for identifying traits (χ 2  = 23.5, df = 6, p &lt; 0.001). The other three factors were not significant predictors. Conclusions Decisions to revise diagnoses may be cued by the detection of contradictory evidence. Education interventions may be more effective at reducing diagnostic error by targeting the ability to detect contradictory information within patient cases.

Understanding diagnosis through ACTion: evaluation of a point-of-care checklist for junior emergency medical residents